This chapter is part two of my discussion of the wilderness experience. Here I focus on my second research question: how are animals and Indigenous people produced relationally to manufacture nature park fantasies?
First, I expose the commodity representation of wildlife and Indigenous people/culture in Park gift shops. Second, I analyze the Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula visitor centers, including taxidermic representations of ‘disappearing’ populations and the rescue narrative that also circulates within these colonial spaces. Importantly a major goal in this chapter is to provide a critical analysis of ‘progress’ and challenge myths of post-colonialism through my assessment of gift shops, museums and the landscape in its entirety.
Park Representation and the Gift Shop Experience
Consumption is structured to reproduce class distinctions (Baker 2002: 200).
Baker (2002) and Hermer (2002) both argue that being able to visit Algonquin or for that matter any park is a privilege associated with class distinctions. Ideas of class distinctions within
‘nature’ spaces represent fantasies of belonging in parks that according to Bryne and Wolch (2009) are a function of White nation-making or what Hage (2000) refers to as the White nation fantasy. Bryne and Wolch’s (2009) research finds that White individuals are most attracted to
parks in order to enjoy wilderness solitude and opportunities for rigorous and challenging exercise. More specifically they report from a review of other scholars’ data that “Whites disproportionately appear to enjoy camping, hiking, hunting, boating, swimming, cycling, and dog-walking” (749). This is a significant finding since the above-mentioned activities are what
often encompass the ‘wilderness’ experience, many of them offered at Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula. Bryne and Wolch argue “race shapes space” and suggest ignoring racial oppression outside the park perimeter can result in “barriers to park access” (750). Bryne and Wolch’s findings are significant to my arguments since they reveal ‘wilderness’ areas are predominately White spaces. This is a result of ideas of what is enjoyable, cultural factors and accessibility barriers as a result of racism that shapes meanings and belonging in space. The point is that park spaces have been coded White. Relations within the Parks are a product of capitalism in a historical context of nation building. In addition relations within the Parks are consumptive, whereby nature, wildlife and Indigenous people are commodified for White consumption. When I refer to White consumption, I am suggesting that the Parks have been organized in a way that appeals to White desires and fantasies. This organization of Whiteness in parks is a result of Whites being the most common group to utilize ‘wilderness’ space, according to Byrne and Wolch (2009). While this is not to suggest only White people visit Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula, they are the most represented in these spaces.
Tourism is an activity identified as a demonstration of an individual’s privileged economic and social position (Baker 2002, Byrne and Wolch 2009, Cronin 2011, Dubinsky 1999, Francis 1992, Lemelin 2006, Thorpe 2012, Wakeham 2008). Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula are spaces where individuals can travel to in order to escape the complications of modernity to enjoy the pleasures of nature, placing the traveller in a ‘contact zone’ with wild animals, Indigenous people and their land pre-European invasion (Dubinsky 2004, Pratt 1992).
Dubinsky (2004) argues tourism is about difference. The animal life and Indigenous culture at Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula become spectacles in which to juxtapose western imperial progress and evaluate difference in comparison to the ‘other’. Many travelers may believe that
visiting spaces, such as Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula will ‘broaden their mind’ by gaining an appreciation for nature, animal life and Indigenous culture. The Parks provide many sites of spectacles to view through ‘imperial eyes’ as this viewing of difference is the reason for visiting Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula (Dubinsky 2004, Pratt 1992). Moreover, the tourist gaze according to Dubinsky (2004) allows the traveler to construct a “relationship to its opposite non-tourist forms of social experiences and consciousness” (223). At the receiving end of spectacles, wild animals’ bodies are sites of consumption for tourists. Wildlife tourist spectacles reinforce socially constructed relations of superiority (human) and inferiority (animals), which shape our understandings of social progress. Further, Indigenous culture is entrenched within the Park.
Some sites of consuming Indigenous culture include: artwork, canoeing (symbol of a primitive past and colonialism), names of campsites/lakes are Indigenous themed/named, as well as other Indigenous cultural artifacts that circulate within the landscape (Algonquin Park Website). These images formulate a journey through ‘panoptical time’ whereby “history appears as static, fixed and covered in dust” (McClintock 1995: 40).
Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula generate a high level of traffic annually, where visitors indulge their fascination for primitive ‘things’ that satisfies the quest for the wild and allows tourists to imagine a life outside of their position of privilege and power (Dubinsky 2004).
Indigenous people/culture and animals become objects that can be consumed by purchasing souvenirs of wild animal figures and Indigenous cultural artifacts from the gift shop. These objects offer the traveler evidence they have made the journey to a (socially constructed) primitive space. The gift shops at Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula sell commodities that reflect and help to construct the ‘wilderness’ experience in order to satisfy tourist fantasies and expectations of consuming wild ‘things’.
Bears are ‘Comedians’
There are numerous reasons why I highlight bears in this research instead of many other non-human animals. Firstly, bears are among the most widely-represented animals in the gift shops and in imagery created about the Parks. Secondly, bears are important ambassadors of the Parks. Thirdly, bears are symbolic of the wilderness experience. Fourthly, there is a strange violent love relationship that we express towards bears and our attitudes shift depending on space and distance. Lastly, I focus my investigation on representation of predator species, more specifically on bears here and, in the following section, on wolves’. My justification is that predator species ignite shaper reactions on the violent love continuum. I highlight this in Chapter Six when I discuss the extermination of bears and wolves in urban spaces. Bears are also discussed in order to solidify important arguments that I am making about wolves, since they are also a predator species, yet are anthropomorphized in ways that wolves are not. These differences in representation reveal some important aspects of the social construction of wildlife.
To clarify when I refer to ‘bears’ I do not intend-to erase the subjectivity of each bear, or that of any non-human animals who are represented. My theoretical approach in this research prioritizes a non-speciesist analysis and I do not seek to reduce the subjectivity of individual animals to that of a single “type”, yet this language is employed since I am specifically referring to bears as a species, just as I would refer to humans as a species. This does not suggest I am insensitive to human and non-human animals’ subjectivity.
My research at both Parks reveals a similar pattern in which bears are commodified in anthropomorphic ways. Cronin (2011) finds certain non-human animals become synonymous with the Jasper National Park ‘wilderness’ experience and that this is demonstrated through Park rhetoric and tourist photography. Cronin suggests bears are commonly featured as wildlife ambassadors at Jasper and I found a similar representation at both Parks I investigated.
According to Cronin, western (and Indigenous) societies have a fascination with bears. Interest in bears is understandable, since they are powerful, human-like and dangerous. While bears are of interest to many people, the representation of bears in the west is worthy of critique.
This pattern of western fascination can be documented by analyzing how bears are often portrayed in mass media. Charmin toilet paper utilizes cartoon bears on their products and in the company’s commercials, suggesting the paper is as soft as a bear. Yogi bear is a popular cartoon character in a television show and a movie. Another example of bear fascination is the ubiquitous
‘teddy bear’. Bear characters have been transformed into stuffed animals for children or are a romantic gift idea for popular holidays, such as Valentine’s Day and are an expression of romance in early courtship. All of these bears are represented in anthropomorphic terms and are caricatured as a species. Hermer (2002) says popular American icon ‘Smokey Bear’ was a real life bear mascot who symbolically became an advocate for all bears suffering from commercial exploitation. Ironically while many people claimed to admire or appreciate Smokey, he was held captive and died in captivity for the tourist gaze (Hermer 2002). Hermer argues “Smokey represents a degraded, emasculated, dancing bear of emparked nature” (95). Cronin (2011) notes that bears depicted in postcards are often juxtaposed with modern human inventions, such as railroad tracks, automobiles or golf courses. Cronin suggests that even if bears in cars appear as a clash of culture and nature “the two realms remain distinct even when appearing in the same photograph” (114). Cronin says this contradiction is rooted in the construction of bears as trivial, humorous and a species for human entertainment. This aids in the non-disruption between wilderness fantasies regardless of the obvious clash of what is constructed as nature and culture.
Representations of bears inside the Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula gift shops are strange and non-representative of real bears. Some important similarities between the two Parks confirm
Cronin and Hermer’s arguments and my abovementioned examples of how bears are devalued in media. Gift shops in both Parks sell many bear-related items. A recurrent them features cartoon black bears holding a welcome sign or waving (Figures 7, 8, 9). Both Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula shops transform cartoon bears into Christmas ornaments to purchase. These ornament bears are depicted as dancing (Figure 10) or dressed as angels (Figure 11) at Bruce Peninsula, which portrays them as humorous, goofy and cute. Bears at Bruce Peninsula gift shops are often depicted wearing human clothing (Figures 12, 13). At Algonquin I observed that the representation of bears were less devaluing and humorous (no dancing, or bears wearing human clothing). Instead I would describe them more as a souvenir memory of the ‘wilderness’
experience (Figure 14). This does not suggest the representation is less problematic at Algonquin, since the Algonquin ornaments depict bears as friendly and sharing a harmonious relationship with moose. Bears and other animals are depicted as participating in activities they are physically unable to do. This is exemplified in sculptures of bear characters canoeing (Figures 15, 16). Further, t-shirts and magnets depict the same themes of bears in harmony with moose, showing them canoeing together (Figures 17, 18). At both Parks teddy bears are available to purchase. Bruce Peninsula represented the teddy bear as an ambassador of Canadian national identity that is exemplified by the bear wearing a hat with “Canada” written on it, in addition to a Canadian flag stamped on the bear’s foot (Figure 19). At the Algonquin gift shop one teddy bear had text written on the torso that stated “don’t feed the animals, we’re stuffed already, Algonquin Park” (Figure 20). Presumably this item is intended to be humorous, however it also reproduces an individualist message of self governance to refrain from feeding the animals, as mentioned in Chapter Four. This item serves an educational function in a comical way, instructing tourists how to behave around animals so as not to increase risks for the animals
by habituating them to human feeding that may result in discipline (extermination). However, this message individualizes a problem of coexisting with predator species and normalizes humans’ practices of speciesist governance.
When bears are not represented comically as a cartoon character, sculpture, or teddy bear (which is, in fact most of the time), they are depicted as serious, bold and wild. This is a reflection of the unpredictability of bears. This theme is more visible at Algonquin gift shops than Bruce Peninsula. Algonquin has commodities that feature real photos of bears on magnets (Figure 21) and at Bruce Peninsula, postcards (Figure 22). At Bruce Peninsula one gift shop featured the skin of a bear head with a dream catcher (Figure 23). This example highlights how violent love operates across space. Both Algonquin (wilderness space) and Bruce Peninsula (nature space) are ‘assumed’ to protect wildlife; however, Figure 23 highlights how violence is more normalized at Bruce Peninsula. At Algonquin I did not observe any animal carcasses that were not carefully dismembered (i.e. moccasins) in order to disguise the origins of the animal.
Moreover, this example demonstrates how loving and hating the same species in similar spaces can differ. This is a result of the social construction of space and perceptions of belonging. For example, Algonquin is a ‘wilderness’ space and skins of bear heads would not appeal to the tourists who travel there (primarily to enjoy wildlife). In contrast, at Bruce Peninsula hunting is depicted as a way of life in the region and framed as acceptable since it is assumed that the local Indigenous community participates.
Numerous t-shirt souvenirs displayed a strange theme of bears chasing and attacking humans (Figures 24, 25, 26). Presumably these t-shirts are supposed to be entertaining and humorous to nature park tourists. Dubinsky argues souvenirs provide evidence travellers have made the journey and these shirts are almost comical in the way that individuals who purchase
them could claim they ‘survived’ the ‘wilderness’ experience, specifically at Algonquin camping/portaging in an area heavily populated by bears. Figures 24 and 26 depict materials that specifically imply bears enjoy chasing and eating humans. In Figure 24 the text reads “Canadian Fast food” and in Figure 26 “bears love humans (they taste like chicken)”. These messages on the shirts suggest that animals are potential threats to humans and may eat them. In fact, this reverses the typical power relationship between humans and other animals. The most obvious example is that of “farm animals” who have been domesticated, are controlled and killed by humans in order to consume their flesh. However, other animals classified as “wildlife” are also subject to human predation in the form of recreational hunting. In comparison, the danger to humans from “wild” animals is slight. While bears rarely attack humans, there are documented cases of bears mauling humans in Algonquin and elsewhere in Canada and the United States.
One well-known case is that of Timothy Treadwell, a bear enthusiast in Alaska; he and his partner Amie Huegenard were killed and eaten by grizzly bears in 2003 and the incident became the subject for Werner Herzog’s documentary film Grizzly Man. These bear ‘murderers’
were actively pursued and killed. Another widely-reported case was that of Olga Moskalyova and her stepfather, Igor Tsygenikov, who were attacked and eaten by a mother bear and three cubs in Russia. This attack also resulted in the extermination of the bears. While the bears are framed in the media as having a personal vendetta against humans (Mail Online: August 17, 2011) this ignores the fact that the animals unlike some humans who hunt, do not attack for pleasure and instead for food or an act of defence. Many people respond with fear and revulsion when they hear of animals eating humans, since this is such a dramatic reversal of the usual relations of power and domination and it conflicts with the entrenched belief that humans can eat
any animal they desire. When humans are eaten by animals this threatens the human-animal divide of superiority.
According to the Algonquin Information Guide Spring 2012 to Winter 2013, there are four different types of bears within Algonquin including: “a fleeing bear, a habituated bear, a defensive bear, and a predatory black bear” (Algonquin Information Guide Spring 2012 to Winter 2013: 6). The most common type of bear is a fleeing bear, which causes no harm to humans.
Regardless of the unpredictability of real bears, as commodities bears are trivialized for human entertainment and commodity consumption. There is nothing ‘funny’ about bears, yet humans continue to fantasize that bears are cuddly and humourous. Literature that promotes Canadian tourism utilizes images of bears as exemplified in The Canadian Geographic (December, 2012).
Bears are important wildlife ambassadors of Canada (i.e. polar bear on Canadian currency), whereby they are portrayed as majestic creatures of the ‘great Canadian north’. Further, Canada is well-known internationally for having the highest polar bear populations where tourists are able to view them (Lemelin 2006).
Coleman (2004) provides a historical context exploring what has led to the social construction of bears and wolves. He argues that in folklore and oral narratives, bears were constructed as ‘funnier’ than wolves. Coleman (2004) argues this could be a result of the increased likelihood that bears will attack humans under the right circumstances and there is a level of competition for survival. According to Coleman, “animal comedy masks human pain”
that specifically pertains to bears, since they are much more unpredictable than wolves regardless of the fact that wolves were the target of persecution (117). Turning bears into jokes masks the real fears that bears ignite. On the sociozoologic scale, bears are constructed as demons, since they challenge the social order of power as exemplified by the case of bears eating humans (for
example: Timothy Treadwell). This concept that Coleman describes is important to consider in this research, since this is a repetitive theme found in the gift shops. As mentioned above, many animals (including bears) are anthropomorphized. A continual theme I observed through the deconstruction and critique of gift shop commodities at Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula is that humans disguise their fear of bears with humour for supremacist reasons (we fear ‘others’ that threaten our superiority). This finding is interesting since other feared populations (Indigenous people) are also ridiculed and infantilized in order to deflect any anxieties.
My analysis on bear commodification has exposed contradictions in representation of bears in the space of Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula. These contradictions are multi-layered, including bears being depicted as serious and comical within the same space and in the case of Bruce Peninsula the skin of a bear head is an explicit example of violent love.
Wolves as ‘Wilderness’
The truth is we know little about the wolf. What we know a good deal more about is what we imagine the wolf to be (Lopez 1978: 3).
Wolves are one of the most misrepresented species on earth (Lopez 1978). The historical construction of wolves is a narrative of vilification that resulted in widespread extermination (Coleman 2004, Lopez 1978). According to Jones (2003), media and nature writing have contributed to shaping attitudes towards wolves. She argues children’s stories such as The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Little Red Riding Hood and, I would add, The Three Little Pigs, along with many other stories, perpetuates the “assumption of canine malevolence, the cunning lupine villain pitted against an embattled human community” (Jones 2003:1). Coleman (2004) also echoes this narrative that he links to folklore, whereby he reports there is a common theme of the stalking wolf in the forest who threatens the vulnerable victimized lost traveler. Negative portrayals of wolves are not only a historical narrative. This theme continues in recent popular
films, such as The Grey. The film depicts wolves as warriors of the wilderness and perpetuates stereotypes of wolves as bloodthirsty predators waiting to hunt down humans. Many scholars have reported the ambivalent relationship humans have towards wolves (Coleman 2004, Lopez 1978, Jones 2002).
Firstly, to clarify the wolves that reside in Algonquin are accurately identified as the coywolf. The coywolf is a new species that originated from Algonquin. A result of the decimation of grey wolves, the original inhabitants were forced to mate with coyotes in order to
Firstly, to clarify the wolves that reside in Algonquin are accurately identified as the coywolf. The coywolf is a new species that originated from Algonquin. A result of the decimation of grey wolves, the original inhabitants were forced to mate with coyotes in order to